Think about walking down the street, situation normal, only every person has both a cell phone and a side arm. On the one hand, it's very unlikely anyone will try anything stupid. If there's any common aid at all, that person will be downed by a bystander. On the other hand .. every fucking person has a gun.

I wouldn't mind club dresses accommodating thigh holsters, but at the same time I'd be fine with distribution reduced exclusively to psych-authorized hunting rifles with bio-id-activation and trackable ammunition.

"Learn how to use one and vote for open carry" vs. Demolition Man, where only the ones who are most dangerous with them can get them.

This will never become a reality, most normal people simply don't have an interest in walking around armed to the hilt.

I don't know, there's enough gun violence as there is, making it an absolute normality wouldn't be a good thing in the long run. If this thread is not locked in a few hours, I'll give a more in-depth response.

i think gun laws are fine as they are. i prefer people have a license to carry in public, and that every citizen allowed guns in their own home. one of my ex-teachers stopped an aggrevated rape in progress because he was carrying a licensed handgun. guy was wailing on some woman in a parking lot and my teacher knocked the guy over and pulled a gun on him.

Here, it is pretty damn difficult to get any form of gun license. Gun crime happens, but is particularly rare. The UK is another example of a place like that - although gun laws are even stricter there (police don't regularly carry firearms).

Sure, if everyone has a gun strapped to their side, they can shoot anyone who tries anything. But also, anyone can shoot anyone, and honestly, that is a pretty scary world. Yeah, okay, someone shoots someone in the head, others will probably draw guns and start firing. That person who has been shot in the head is still (more than likely) dead, though. Deterence of this level only gets you so far.

As for guns in households, personally I'm not a fan of the idea - the teacher stopping an assault is a good example, I'll give you that - but if he wasn't armed, would he still have been able to intervene? I think so, and if he has a gun, what is to say that the guy doing the assault couldn't have also pulled one? If guns aren't in the house, kids can't get access to them - I know that smart people who have guns store them in more secure places, but not everyone with a gun is smart - at least not the ones who are likely to look down the barrel whilst cleaning them, and I've heard a few stories about kids playing with their parents gun, and then it goes off and kills their mate.

I'm not saying I have the answer, but I feel more secure knowing that if someone has a problem with me here, they are far, far, far less likely to be able to start shooting.

Gun-in-every-household has lost its meaning centuries ago. It's not like you'd need to defend yourself against Confederate or Brittish attacks. Yea sure, you can intimidate a burglar or a rapist by pulling a gun on their head but if you aren't actually prepared to pull the trigger it might just get you in more trouble.

I know that smart people who have guns store them in more secure places, but not everyone with a gun is smart - at least not the ones who are likely to look down the barrel whilst cleaning them, and I've heard a few stories about kids playing with their parents gun, and then it goes off and kills their mate.

I'm not saying I have the answer, but I feel more secure knowing that if someone has a problem with me here, they are far, far, far less likely to be able to start shooting.

Think of all the nutcases and street bullies, and imagine if they had guns, and not all do, even if in the US, and especially elsewhere.

They'd probably get their arse nailed by other people, but not before they'd do some damage themselves. And they probably wouldn't even have much reason to fear jail. So I really don't think it would be safer.

australia i still think has the biggest ever killing spree in the world(could be wrong though) but in australia its so rare, in america its scary how often it happens, i love the gun laws in australia, i would defiantly not feel safe if everyone had a gun

Almost no guns here in Australia and we're not exactly living in Demolition Man land.

I wouldn't welcome it changing.

Interesting point of view, there are so many here in America that are so gung ho about the second amendment- especially in rural areas such as where I live. I remain fairly neutral on the issue though it is far too fucking easy to purchase fire-arms whether they are legal or illicit.

_________________

Zodijackyl wrote:

A girl invited me to "Sleep with her" and I ended up at a stoner doom show.

I don't buy the whole "If carrying guns is legal then everyone would have a gun and it would be mayhem in the streets" argument that so many leftwingers seem to use (and this is coming from someone who considers himself fairly left wing.) Just because you would be allowed to carry a gun doesn't mean everyone is going to do so. Just about everyone in my family has said they wouldn't carry a gun if it was legal. Also, not everyone would be constantly shooting everyone, the majority of people just aren't like that. It could also be used to stop psychos when they decide to massacre everyone (school shootings ect.) The Batman movie shooting is a bad example because of the smoke canister. I remember an American politician talk about how when she was a kid a gunman came into the restaurant her family was at and started killing off all the adults, including her parents. She argued that if a few people had guns, the shooter could most likely have been stopped and her parents would have died. And also, wouldn't it make sense that if more women carried guns, there would be less rapes?

However, guns that have the capacity of killing many people in a short period of time shouldn't be legal. The batman shooter shouldn't have been able to buy the guns he did. He wouldn't have been able to cause that much damage with a simple handgun. I do believe that people should be able to carry guns for self defence, and that dangerous criminals will get guns wether they are legal are not, and if legal they still often buy illegal guns anyway. The key to this whole issue is moderation. People shouldn't be able to buy weapons that enable slaughter of a large number of people in a short amount of time, its just insane that thats legal in some parts of the states.

The weapon used by the Aurora shooter is principally manufactured for civilian use and has been since 1963. It is a semiautomatic weapon, not a burst-fire or fully automatic one. It looks remarkably similar to its more powerful cousin, the M-16, which is what most people in the media assume the AR-15 is. The issue here was not the gun, it was the somewhat absurdly large magazine that enabled him to keep firing for a long time.

I agree with your contention that if everyone had a gun there would not be chaos in the streets. There have been many periods in history where nearly everyone in a society had X weapon, and they were not in a state of anarchy. If anarchy already exists, the situation would be different. As for using guns in self-defense: it is the general consensus amongst American criminologists that guns are already used for defensive use more than they are used for crime (this has been studied in-depth for about two decades at this point). However, what you seem to be talking about is concealed-carry or open carry, for which there really is no consensus. The reason is that there are 50 different sets of laws with 50 different definitions and requirements for what constitutes legal concealed and/or open carry, which makes it difficult to study.

As a side note, if people like this had no access to guns, they would simply do what the Columbine shooters tried and almost succeeded in doing: blow buildings up. It is not well-known, but those shooters intended to blow the school up and drive away unscathed. They had enough explosives to do so, they just screwed up the detonators. This Joker-wannabe tried to do the same thing with his apartment, and given how long it took the cops to disarm everything it sounds like he knew what he was doing. It's a miracle he didn't plant them in a public place.

_________________

iamntbatman wrote:

On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

FloristOfVampyrism wrote:

That wasn't meant as a k.o. though, he specifically targeted an area of the cerebellum which, if ruptured, renders you a Jehovah's witness indefinitely

"according to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, 93% of all firearms used in criminal acts are obtained illegally. This leaves the remaining 7% firearms used in criminal acts that are obtained legally."

Basically, if you are a criminal, why would you use a gun that is registered to your name and can be traced back to you? Harsher gun laws don't prevent gun crime. The criminals will get the guns if they want them.

As for how harsh or lax gun laws should be, I think it should be according to how potentially dangerous a gun is. I don't think any firearm should be banned, but I do think the control of certain guns should be harder. For instance, in Illinois, obtaining a firearm requires a Firearm Owners Identification card and a waiting period of 3 days from the point of purchase. I think that this is fine for the type of weapon(handgun). The state does not permit it's residents to own assault weapons, the definition of which gets a little blurry, as it is defined differently in different states. I think that residents should be allows to own assault weapons, but there much be extensive approval for it, such as mandatory gun safety classes, proof of a working gun safe, a psychiatric evaluation, etc.

And as for the Colorado shooter, I haven't done a whole lot of research into it, but he had an AR-15(which sounds a whole lot scarier than it is) and 3 handguns, all of which were obtained LEGALLY. Now, there are some serious questions as to why he was allowed to own these guns. Basically, you don't shoot up a movie theater unless you have some very serious mental health problems, and not ones that develop overnight. At some point in his life, a doctor, a family member, teacher, etc must have noticed, and if no one did, then the ball was REALLY dropped in this case.

The other thing to note is that he was an unemployed student who was amassing these weapons for months, and that isn't cheap. Not to mention he was armored from head to toe. I think some estimates claim he spent in the $40,000-$60,000 range, over the course of only three months. It seems high by my estimates, as an AR-15 is about 700, each handgun brand new was 800-2000. I do not know prices of body armor, but I do know that it isn't cheap, as just a bullet proof vest will run you 400-600. Given that he was unemployed, he was getting his money from one of a few places: independant wealth, which i don't believe is the case, loans from his family, or student cost of living loans. Purchases like this should have been huge red flags for either a family member or a creditor.

I'm gonna get a lot of shit for saying this, but I think civilians should be allowed to obtain fully automatic weapons. I'd rather see society plummet back into anarchy than continue going down the road we're on... drones in the sky, Google, Facebook, and Apple selling users' personal information, etc.

Harsher gun laws don't prevent gun crime. The criminals will get the guns if they want them.

They don't prevent gun crime, but they reduce gun crime. According to the UN, the US had a rate of 30 homicides by firearm per million people in 2009, while England & Wales had 1, Australia had 1 and Poland had 1. Can you really attribute 30x the rate of these countries to other factors such as social and economic issues?

Chainsaw Omega wrote:

I think that residents should be allows to own assault weapons, but there much be extensive approval for it, such as mandatory gun safety classes, proof of a working gun safe, a psychiatric evaluation, etc.

But why would anyone need to own an assault rifle? Even self defence isn't a good enough reason to own a weapon like that, unless there's a chance you could be attacked by a horde of orcs.

Harsher gun laws don't prevent gun crime. The criminals will get the guns if they want them.

They don't prevent gun crime, but they reduce gun crime. According to the UN, the US had a rate of 30 homicides by firearm per million people in 2009, while England & Wales had 1, Australia had 1 and Poland had 1. Can you really attribute 30x the rate of these countries to other factors such as social and economic issues?

I had trouble finding this on google, can you link me?

I was curious if it was homicide to legally registered firearm or not.

What with the recent shooting in Aurora, I would like to see stricter controls on who can buy guns. For example, you need to pass written and practical tests to be able to drive a car, so maybe there should be those types of tests when buying guns. Also, mental health and drug testing would be nice. Because as it is, in Colorado at least, just about any maniac can walk in and buy a gun.

Whackos like the Batman shooter and Anders Breivik are going to get their weapons and wreck their havok one way or another. That being said, there is no reason why the average civilian needs to own assault rifles. It's not a 2nd Amendment issue(or whatever other countries have for gun laws), it's a common sense issue.

I'm all for people owning semi automatic, small calibre handguns (with proper screening and proper several month long training). But semi/fully automatic rifles and automatic handguns are just unnecessary.

_________________

Napero wrote:

For the first time in 9 years, I have a brand new PC. This has 1277% more banning power than anything I've owned before.

"Whenever you dream you're holding the key, it opens the door to let you be free." - RJD

I agree with your contention that if everyone had a gun there would not be chaos in the streets. There have been many periods in history where nearly everyone in a society had X weapon, and they were not in a state of anarchy. If anarchy already exists, the situation would be different. plant them in a public place.

I disagree. Having studied history, and particularly medieval history, the homicide rate was much,much higher than ours simply because people went about armed, even if it was just a dagger. The murder rate dropped dramatically when fashion and style dictated that going around with a weapon was no longer in vogue. The Assault rate may be similar, but the chances of an assault turning into a homicide when one or both parties are armed is common sense I would think.

_________________

Mike_Tyson wrote:

"I think the average person thinks I'm a fucking nut and I deserve whatever happens to me."

I remember being told a story of a smart-ass who looked up his university's antiquated rules and demanded a pint of beer while he took his final. He got his pint, but he also received a fine for not wearing a sword.

It's pretty easy to see that proper training makes lots of things better. Oddly, it's only because of general social responsibility that there aren't already metal detectors at movie theaters.

Tony's right: more authority is not the answer to ensure safety. I'm guessing no one here wants to live in a police state. That said, what are some of the benefits of intense but commercial authoritarian places, like Taiwan?

I'm wondering if ralffik really thought through his scenario. In this possible future, lots of people have guns, but there are also tons of cops. Who wants more micro-managers? Can't we all just not be stupid?

Almost no guns here in Australia and we're not exactly living in Demolition Man land.

I imagine Australia being more like The Road Warrior anyway.

I live in Appalachia. Everyone here has guns for hunting or self defense. Not a lot of gun crimes here. Usually its stabbings. There was an incident a few years ago when I lived in Oak Ridge where 2 groups of guys got into a fight over drugs. 32 shots were fired and 8 people were sent to the hospital for stab wounds. Those 8 guys were the ones with the guns and fired the shots.

Guns are very hard to come by here(legally). But if one was so inclined to buy one, you could easily buy a revolver for 100bucks in ghetto, if you are willing to take the risk.Because of this, it's mostly people with intentions other than self-defense, have connections with criminals, or are criminals themselves who have guns here. And we have one highest violent crime rates in the world by the way.

I don't know if allowing the general populace to have guns would help things or finally turn this place into a pos-apocalyptic shithole.

I'm gonna get a lot of shit for saying this, but I think civilians should be allowed to obtain fully automatic weapons. I'd rather see society plummet back into anarchy than continue going down the road we're on... drones in the sky, Google, Facebook, and Apple selling users' personal information, etc.

I don't see how having automatic weapons helps in this scenario.

Marag wrote:

And we have one highest violent crime rates in the world by the way.

I don't know if allowing the general populace to have guns would help things or finally turn this place into a pos-apocalyptic shithole.

It all depends on the population's sense of civic duty. Living in Japan I get the sense they are fine without guns because there is a non-violent sense of duty to the whole of society. The Swiss are armed to the teeth and they lack the violent gun crimes the US has. In both cases no guns or all guns is viable.

America is a bad combination of people with a high sense of individuality and gun availability. It gives people the mentality that guns are a tool to get what they want done. For a lot, this just means hunting and protecting their house. But for others, we know where that's headed.

I think we'd be better off if we all carried swords all over the place. It'd be harder to kill a large group of people with a sword. As soon as someone hears the sound of metal being unsheathed, everyone's on edge and it's possible someone would draw their sword just as quickly to prevent an attack. I could defend myself against one lone criminal and it'd be harder for a crazed criminal to go on a rampage. With a gun it's easier to just yank it out and shoot a lot of people. It's easy to hide. A sword announces to everyone that you're either a guardian or a threat. Yet due to tradition, no one wants to entertain the idea of us walking around with swords as opposed to guns.

Right now I don't think it's possible to go by society as a whole. Even within America, different states have different cultures. I'm fine with Montana having guns. They hunt a lot there and don't have urban crime rates like other American cities. Guns are more a proud tradition there than a people killing tool. So it's best dealt on a state by state, country by country basis.

australia i still think has the biggest ever killing spree in the world(could be wrong though) but in australia its so rare, in america its scary how often it happens, i love the gun laws in australia, i would defiantly not feel safe if everyone had a gun

That happened before the institution of strong gun laws here. Indeed, it was the driving force of that piece of legislation.

We haven't had any massacres since.

_________________

gomorro wrote:

Fortunately the seminar started and when it finished, I runed away like if Usain Bolt were about to rape me.

I think we'd be better off if we all carried swords all over the place. It'd be harder to kill a large group of people with a sword. As soon as someone hears the sound of metal being unsheathed, everyone's on edge and it's possible someone would draw their sword just as quickly to prevent an attack. I could defend myself against one lone criminal and it'd be harder for a crazed criminal to go on a rampage. With a gun it's easier to just yank it out and shoot a lot of people. It's easy to hide. A sword announces to everyone that you're either a guardian or a threat. Yet due to tradition, no one wants to entertain the idea of us walking around with swords as opposed to guns.

It would also be so much more badass and metal. I'm all for it. If people need to be able to slaughter each other, it should at least be a physical effort.

I wouldn't mind club dresses accommodating thigh holsters, but at the same time I'd be fine with distribution reduced exclusively to psych-authorized hunting rifles with bio-id-activation and trackable ammunition.

"Learn how to use one and vote for open carry" vs. Demolition Man, where only the ones who are most dangerous with them can get them.

Does an armed society cheapen life when it's easier to take?

Where do you think we'll go? How is it in your country?

Not sure how feasible or expensive it is to make guns only operable by the owner like Robocop or something. If it is not feasible then this idea is just plain stupid as there are far to many people out there who will be irresponsible with it and leave the gun easily in reach of children. Making ammunition traceable is just not enough in my opinion and even then it is probably extremely expensive. Look at the fiasco of The Fast and the Furious. Yeah the ATF has proven they are not capable of this.

The other problem is that you don't have time to defend if someone pulls out a gun and shoots you in the face. With a knife at least they need to be right up on your face to do it, and even then you have a chance of defending yourself.

And there will be far more deaths as a result of a heated argument and our prison system is overloaded enough as it is.

The gun laws are too lax as it is in my opinion. Semi-automatic weapons like the one the kid used in that movie the other day should only be available at a gun range for the public. It is unbelievable a kid was able to purchase 6000 rounds of ammunition over the internet as well. I wonder what they thought he was going to do with that much ammunition...

And I don't want to hear the old argument of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" as that is a weak and flawed argument. Without access to guns it will be a lot harder to kill someone with a knife and you can't kill over 10 people and wound over 50 more in the span of 2minute and you don't even have a chance to defend yourself with a gun. People also can run away from someone coming at them with a knife. You can't run from a gun until you are far enough away. It is also a lot harder to rob a bank with a knife than a gun.

I also don't want to hear the right to bear arms constitutional crap. We have come a long way since flint lock muskets and I highly doubt our founding fathers had automatic weapons in mind when they wrote the constitution.

Apologies if I have said redundant things as I have not bothered to read any of the responses at the time of this post.

_________________In reference to Baby Metal

tanabata wrote:

I heard one of the moderators blacklisted them because of his subjective opinion. Well If that is the case, you sir have shit taste and you ain't my nigga!

Leaving your weapon loaded is a mistake for more reasons than the obvious. Most stoppages are magazine related if you leave your clip full the spring can stick so when your first shot goes and the slide cycles to feed your next round it wont be there.

_________________

Kvisling wrote:

"Dickenson sounds like he'd jump at the opportunity to lather you up".